After such a long post, you only showed that you failed to understand what unification is. The details are precise in the sense that sub-consciousnesses unified. Then, on top of that unification, different new qualia have been emerged on the 2 different consciousnesses. The fact that the final result is not 100% identical doesn't disprove telepathy, but rather shows that telepathy happens at the sub-consciousnesses level, and not at the highest level of consciousness. See ? This is the difference between a real scientists and a random "skeptic". A scientists try to understand a phenomenon for what it is, while a "skeptic" dismisses everything he doesn't like.
On Sunday, 26 May 2019 23:59:29 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote: > > Endless experiments of what you suggest about > unification/telepathy/precognition/etc. together/separate/etc. has been > tested and tested and tested, under all sorts of circumstances under all > conditions thinkable. My father was a lifelong believer things like > telepathy and failure to confirm his beliefs didn't deter him from > believing, even though he was a good-thinking electronic engineer with >12 > patents (you can look him up in USPTO.gov , Meyer Marks, before year 1975). > > * Phenomenology infers that there is a phenomenon*, and in the case of > telepathy and precognition, no phenomena can be demonstrated, whether > "unified" with emotion/communication etc., when falsifiable experiments > show every claim to be a "lookalike," such as conjuring (magician's > tricks), fakers like Uri Geller, random chance, liars, clever opportunity > seekers, coincidences, or flat misinterpretations, etc. The total failure > of precognition hotlines demonstrate that precognition is unlikely to be a > phenomenon - with a score of zero hits in probably millions of submissions > over maybe 20 years. > > There are "treasure chests" of experiments, extremely thoroughly > investigated and documented by thousands of investigators for centuries, > including your suggested "unification." Look up the files in the archives > of randi.org , Dr Shermer's Skeptical Inquirer, Joseph Nichol's work, > CSICOP (now CSI, Committee for skeptical Inquiry) and a dozen more, most > discoverable with web searching. Randi has an excellent library in Florida > that should be accessible for research. > > Cosmin, your example of your girlfriend and you "connecting" thru facebook > fails your own criteria, point 1:* 1) Such precise sharable details.* > The only way to reconcile the failure to be specific - is to "believe > anyway." > Cheers! Howard Marks > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8d7ca18b-910d-4bd8-8f81-e4c8ae26ce6b%40googlegroups.com.
